Educating for sustainable production and consumption and sustainable livelihoods: learning from multi-stakeholder networks

Abstract

This paper examines how education for sustainable development (ESD) can be concretely advanced using the theoretical approaches of sustainable consumption and production (

Holistic competence orientation in sustainability-related study programmes: lessons from implementing transdisciplinary student team research in Colombia, China, Mexico and Nicaragua

“…It promotes reflection, reconstruction and critical interpretation of experiences (Berdegué et al 2007; Jara Holliday 2012) and thus helps to Additional project to the training programmes developed in extra time of students and teachers achieve broader but systematic learning. The approach therefore offers an added value to the documentation and analysis of cases for joint learning as stipulated by Petry et al (2011). Implementing pilot projects introduces a practical experience for the lecturers to learn from, and systematising these experiences offers a methodology for making the learning explicit and transparent.…”

Relating Environmental, Social, and Governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: An empirical analysis

“…As pointed in literature through several studies (Aras, Tezcan, & Kutlu Furtuna, 2018, Odell & Ali, 2016Whelan & Fink, 2016) the ESG performance can benefit the firm economically on a long run. Also, many studies verify that the CSR initiatives can increase the financial status of firm on the long run through choice of shareholders and investors in sustainable investing (Petry et al, 2011;Siew, 2015;Zhao et al, 2018).…”

Regional Centres of Expertise (RCEs), Green Economies and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as Dialogue: Who is Expert?

“…In 1991, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as well as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), and the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) suggested ‘sustainable livelihoods’ (SLs) as a useful concept that is perhaps closer to the lives of individuals and communities, in contrast to ‘sustainable development’ as associated in more formal ways with governmental policies in close relationship with global markets (Leal Filho, 2000). Taken within the framework of endogenous development, the concept of SLs builds on the word livelihood, which is understood essentially as ‘a means of gaining a living’ (Chambers & Conway, 1992, as cited in Petry et al, 2011, p. 86). As a uniquely local approach to development, SLs has gained attention over the last two to three decades as a way of addressing poverty, particularly for those living in rural and marginalized areas.…”

“…As a uniquely local approach to development, SLs has gained attention over the last two to three decades as a way of addressing poverty, particularly for those living in rural and marginalized areas. Perhaps, the key point about SL is that it distinguishes ‘between those components over which an individual has direct control and those components affecting the individual’s livelihood over which there is little or no direct control—at least over the short term’ (Petry et al, 2011, p. 86). The principle of SLs then encourages local communities to participate in productive activities outside of the global marketplace, with implications for the development of local green economies, as contextualized and decentred in the plural, in contrast to the green economy in the singular as determined by new technologies and the commodification of nature through the global marketplace.…”